See my comment below, as I had a client in Los Gatos who had an unsion agreement. I`m a mortgage broker in the SF Bay area and at first thought it was a pretty cool tool for the property, but after seeing it in action and trying to pay off the deal, it was shocking. Received essentially $ 101K and 3 years later went unison and the payment request was $ 322K. I have a united partnership contract for my house. I needed money, and it helped me when I needed it. I spent a year and a half in my minimum of 3 years of commitment. I still have about $90,000 in equity in my home, and I`ve applied for a HELOC loan from more than one lender. Each lender told me that they would not lend me money with the Unison agreement (neither refinancing nor HELOC). This is me. I either have to pay them back and beg to be released from my contract (yes, it will happen!), or I have to sell my beloved home for exactly the same amount for which I bought it and for which it was evaluated when I contracted with Unison. I`m more than happy to sell it for what I paid less than two years ago, knowing that Unison won`t receive any profit, and I just have to repay them the loan they made me.
I still have 90K of equity after Unison`s repayment. Chase`s assignments of the trust deed are totally fraudulent and a California appeals court ruled that the seized bank had failed to provide evidence that it held the mortgage. This was based on the assignment of the fiduciary description, which was not signed by the FDIC when it sold Washington Mutual to Chase. It was only signed by a V.P. of Chase and simply stated that the FDIC Chase attributed the act of trust, which was completely false. My situation is exactly the same. Chase then sold to Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. SPS, the trust and note deed he had not originally owned to Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
SPS is a totally fraudulent company that is effectively controlled by Chase through joint marketing agreements. The SPS is therefore indeed a debt collector for Chase. The SPS is a total violation of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was not imposed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Then the Republican forced the director to resign and turned around and canceled the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Consumer Protection Act and replaced it with the new Economic Growth Regulatory Relief Protection Act. This removed the CFPB from its responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Consumer Protection Act, which required the CFPB to take steps to deter collection companies disguised as mortgage providers from operating. . . .